"Thus, there is no story here (at least no Rove is a criminal angle). This is nothing but blind partisanship of the left and their willing accomplices in the (we're not biased!) MSM"

I find your conclusion very disappointing. Let's see if I have it right. Because there currently isn't any obvious criminality on the part of Rove there is no basis for the MSM to report on the evolving story of his involvement in this investigation.

Your statement above seems to propose that the American people do not need to know some very important facts that are part of an investigation that has been going on for more then a year. Additionally, your treatment of this entire subject in this post seems to indicate that the American people shouldn't be aware that a close confidant of the president, probably with his approval and the vice presidents prodding, is free to smear the reputation of another man because he will not toe the desired policy line - even if the facts justified his disobedience. So it would seem to you that none of this information and behavior is important to the American people. People, like me, who are trying to raise their children with a sense of right and wrong and who ultimately only have a single vote with which to pass judgement on the people who run our country.

What your post tells me, and any one else who is getting their information from numerous sources, is that your reality (consciously or subconsciously) is filtered through partisan Republican colored glasses. When you hear information that conflicts with this preferred reality you immediately form that information into a straw man that you can easily defeat. In this case your "Rove is not a criminal" statement is the straw man that you have built to protect your team - the team of your preferred reality. Now, in your mind, if Rove does not go to jail then you and your team have been vindicated. If, however, your straw man turned out to be stronger then originally intended (and Rove was found to be criminal in this case) I have no doubt that you would then defend your team with some liberal MSM conspiracy argument.

The non straw man reality, my reality, is more objective and honest then yours. It sees that this story being covered by the MSM, and displayed to the American people, is a story of morals, ethics, and criminality. My reality understands that only when all of these subjects have been presented factually to the members of this republic will they have been honestly served by their media. Fortunately for all of us your desired reality, in this case, is not a filter through which the MSM stories have to pass.

Because there currently isn't any obvious criminality on the part of Rove there is no basis for the MSM to report on the evolving story of his involvement in this investigation.

I have no problem with the MSM reporting on Rove's involvement in the story. Where do you think I got the information that Rove spoke to Matthew Cooper and mentioned Joe Wilson's wife recommended to her bosses that he be sent to Niger? What there is no basis for is the rabid feeding frenzy that the MSM is engaged in, witnessed during Scott McClellan's briefing Monday. Michael Isikoff is an example of the MSM treating the story well; David Gregory and Terry Moran are examples of treating the story deplorably.

Your statement above seems to propose that the American people do not need to know some very important facts that are part of an investigation that has been going on for more then a year.

Actually what we need to do is let the investigation be completed. That is where we will learn the facts. The MSM has reported on Rove's conversation with Cooper. Ok, well and good. All of this 'Karl Rove should resign, be fired, will the president do this or that, or does he stand by Rove' stuff, ad nauseum, is not facts. It is nothing but partisan gotcha politics. I'm not interested! When you have actual facts, I'll be glad to listen. This feeding frenzy bores me however.

Additionally, your treatment of this entire subject in this post seems to indicate that the American people shouldn't be aware that a close confidant of the president, probably with his approval and the vice presidents prodding, is free to smear the reputation of another man because he will not toe the desired policy line

How did Rove smear Joe Wilson's reputation? Apparently he told Matthew Cooper, "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report"? Is that the smearing of his reputation?

The genesis of the trip was flawed. Wilson was recommended by his wife, which he repeatedly denied at the time. Wilson's steadfast conclusion about his report, saying he found no links to Saddam buying Uranium in Niger is also flawed. According to the Senate Select Committee, "The report on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002 did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal..."

Plus British intel continued to say the Niger angle was well-founded. So Rove was warning Cooper not to go too far out on the limb for Wilson's story, based on these factors. That, my friend, is FAR from a smear.

"...a close confidant of the president, probably with his approval and the vice presidents prodding, is free to smear the reputation of another man because he will not toe the desired policy line..."

What is your evidence for the claim that the president probably approved, at the vice president's prodding, a smear to be made? That is something cooked up in your brain because you want to believe it. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. That sounds much more like a smear to me.

What your post tells me, and any one else who is getting their information from numerous sources, is that your reality (consciously or subconsciously) is filtered through partisan Republican colored glasses.

I am partisan, but I'm only nominally a Republican, though certainly not a Democrat. However, I have backed up my post with the facts as we know them. I have shown that those facts do not warrant the hysterical reaction this story is currently getting. According to what we know, Rove did not intentionally "out" Valerie Plame. So why all the hoopla and calls for Rove's head?

...only when all of these subjects have been presented factually to the members of this republic will they have been honestly served by their media.

Skipping all the pointless (and wrong) psychoanalysis of me, I totally agree with this statement! I want the subject presented factually! That is why we need to let the investigation conclude! It's the gotcha game that I'm arguing does not serve the American people! I like exclamation points! Sorry, got carried away there...

Fortunately for all of us your desired reality, in this case, is not a filter through which the MSM stories have to pass.

Unfortunately for all of us, MSM stories often fail to pass through any reality!

Hmmm, you left out the part of the conversation where Rove tells Cooper, "This information is going to be declassified soon" and "I have already said too much." Now my understanding is that something must BE classifed before it can be DEclassified. So obviously Rove knowingly gave classified information to a reporter that he knew he shouldn't have given. Also, his excuse that he was only correcting Cooper's misconception that the CIA had sent Wilson makes no sense. As has been made very clear, the CIA DID send Wilson. Therefore there was no reason for Rove to mention Wilson's wife working at the CIA.

As to other claims you have made, the British belief that the Niger document was accurate was based on reports they received from the White House. The British had never seen the memos. As we now know, the CIA had already decided that the Niger claim was incredible on its surface due to the fact that the of the 2 uranimum mines in Niger, one was flooded and the other was under French control. It took experts only two hours to determine that the Niger document was a clumsy forgery. The CIA never believed the Niger story. It is very telling that there has been much attention paid to the idea that Wilson's report that it was very unlikely Iraq bought yellowcake from Niger did not change any minds at the CIA. What is not being reported in the right wing media is that the CIA had already decided that it highly unlikely and Wilson's report did not change that belief. Why would it? They believed the same thing. The yellowcake claim was bogus.

"Hmmm, you left out the part of the conversation where Rove tells Cooper, "This information is going to be declassified soon"...(snip)..."Now my understanding is that something must BE classifed before it can be DEclassified. So obviously Rove knowingly gave classified information to a reporter "

From Matthew Cooper in Time (emphasis mine):

"The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings," Cooper wrote in Time.

You are wrong at best, dishonest at worst. You are making it sound like what Rove told Cooper was what was classified, but as Cooper himself points out, Rove told him of the existence of material that would be declassified. He did not tell him what that material contained, only that it existed. Rove did not "obviously" or "knowingly" give classified information to a reporter. He didn't give it at all!

"Also, his excuse that he was only correcting Cooper's misconception that the CIA had sent Wilson makes no sense. As has been made very clear, the CIA DID send Wilson."

Actually it does make sense. Wilson's article led people to believe that he was sent to Niger on orders from the CIA director himself, when in reality it was on orders from much lower down the chain. Rove was simply giving Cooper the correct information.